I bring this information to the public with a very heavy heart. Some journalists revel in being able to expose the type of dramatic conspiracy contained in this article. I take no such pleasure in bringing this to your attention. I will receive no awards or accolades, nor do I seek any. I am setting myself up to be criticized as “one of those conspiracy theorists” with too much time on his hands who has nothing better to do with my time than to invent wild tales of corruption in an attempt to draw attention to myself. I will not be invited on Coast to Coast AM, to reveal my findings to an audience of 12 million people. Perhaps, 10-20 thousand people will actually take the time to read the stunning facts contained in the following paragraphs. What I am trying to accomplish is to start a chain reaction that will culminate in waking up a majority of the public in order to rise up against the abject evil that runs our country. This article is controversial, and I might not actually believe it myself except that every fact in this article is true.

This article is structured in such a way that if the reader takes the time to follow the evidence trail, there can only be one conclusion that makes any sense.

Specifically, this article will detail the following:

The globalists through their government minions are in the process of destroying massive bodies of water including, but not limited to Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The destruction is not because of neglect, it is willful destruction with very ulterior motives in mind.

The globalists are using nitrates from fertilizer and Corexit to accomplish their desire to create a dead zone in the aforementioned bodies of water.

The globalists are creating water dead zones which will allow the proliferation of algae growth and the oil companies have initially led the charge to convert our energy usage from oil to algae.

Prominent globalists are involved in this conspiracy and have contributed massive resources to this endeavor.

Prominent globalists are attempting to buy up as much water as possible to exacerbate the destruction of water resources in the aforementioned areas. In other words, Americans are looking at extreme water scarcity from which the globalists can wage wars and force submission to their will, while at the same time carry out their stated depopulation agenda.

My instincts tell me that this conspiracy has more breadth and depth than what is revealed here and it is my sincere hope that my fellow researchers will afford some much needed attention to these issues, because I strongly believe there is more to learn and we do not have much time because humanity’s fate hangs in the balance.

How many times in the history of the insurance industry, have individuals or businesses been caught setting fire to their homes and businesses in order to receive a lucrative payout of insurance money? This is exactly what BP and Exxon are doing. They are intentionally burning down their own home (oil) in order to construct a behemoth palace (bio-fuels).

From Parts Five and Six of this series, it was conclusively proven that BP, Goldman Sachs, Transocean and Halliburton prepositioned (e.g. BP stock dumping) themselves to make money from the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. However, there is a lot more going on in the Gulf than a handful of corporations each making hundreds of millions of dollars from their contrived role in the oil spill. The motive to destroy the Gulf holds the promise of making certain entities and individuals multi-trillions of dollars.

The Obama administration and many others (individual billionaires, select politicians, BP, Exxon, Nalco, GM, GE, Goldman Sachs, University of Chicago, and many others including the Department of Defense) are all deeply invested in bio-fuels. These billionaire psychopaths will willingly sacrifice the Gulf and all of its residents for this multi Trillion Dollar industry representing a new era of energy applications.

Algae Will Replace Oil As the Nation’s Energy Source

Nitrogen fertilizers and Corexit are being used to systematically create dead zones in large bodies of water in the United States. The use of nitrogen fertilizers and Corexit are accomplishing the same result. This is no coincidence, as the tragedy in the Gulf was perpetrated to accomplish this end.

Farmers apply nitrogen fertilizer to crops to increase yield. Farmers are compensated by the government for crop yield. Therefore, farmers overload the soil. Plants absorb only 30 to 50% of the nitrogen, so as much as 70%, or 87 pounds per acre will end up running off into the nearest body of water. The only thing that grows in this environment is algae. Therefore, nitrogen has a decided evil side as it is creating huge problems with major bodies of water that we are only now beginning to understand. The EPA is aware of the problem, yet remains silent on the issue.

Chesapeake Bay is polluted beyond repair in which massive fish kills, general habitat degradation and bacteria proliferation threatens the health of humans. The damage is rampant. This massive pollution, resulting from the nitrogen runoffs resulting from agricultural endeavors, fills the Chesapeake Bay and, again, the only substance which flourishes in the bay is algae.

Each and every spring, excess fertilizer is deposited into the Mississippi River which eventually ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, thus causing a massive algae bloom that leads to a giant oxygen-deprived “dead zone” where fish can’t survive. And the same thing is going on in the Great Lakes in places like Lake Erie.

Following the Gulf oil spill, and against all common sense, the most lethal form of dispersant, Corexit, was used to treat the oil spill. Instead, what happened is that the spill has resulted in the creation of the second largest dead zone body of water in the world; second only to the Baltic Sea. And, as the reader will discover later in this article, the new energy craze among the so-called environmentalists is algae.

In isolation, we seem to only be looking at a pollution problem that the EPA should deal with. Simply put, the use of nitrogen fertilizer and Corexit should be banned. However, when we look at the totality of the Corexit/nitrogen problem being used to destroy our water supplies, one should immediately sit up and take notice.Once one understands that Algae proliferates in an otherwise dead zone of water, then one will understand why Corexit was used in the Gulf. And when one understands that fact, one can only conclude that Gulf oil spill was not an accident as it marks the ushering in of a new era in which the bio-fuel, algae, will replace oil. And, amazingly, the oil companies are among those who are behind this plot to destroy major bodies of water in order to allow for the propagation of algae.

President Obama is also participating in this conspiracy against humanity. On March 15, 2013, President Obama announced that it is his intention to move American vehicles away from oil to bio-fuels. Obama, amazingly in this period of Sequestration, has asked Congress for two billion dollars to expand research in this area. And isn’t it an interesting coincidence that the President’s science advisor,John Holdren, in 2009, advocated for “fertilizing” the oceans? I remember that most people thought Holdren had lost his mind when he proposed this as a solution for global warming. However, in the context of creating dead zones through the use of Corexit and nitrogen fertilizers, his suggestion makes a great deal of sense in light of today’s heightened interest in bio-fuels. This cannot be described as anything but psychopathic thinking in that the EPA would allow nitrogen fertilizers to destroy major bodies of water in which only algae can grow. And that this administration would even entertain the idea of creating oceanic dead zones through fertilizing these bodies of water is nothing but pure insanity. It is dangerous to the entire well-being of the planet. But of course, we are dealing with psychopaths.

How many brush fires equals an all-out forest fire? How many coincidences does it take to make a conspiracy? For those who think that there are some interesting thoughts presented here, but the conspiracy angle of destroying major bodies of water to foster the growth of algae needs more proof, let’s take a look at a variable which will connect all the dots.

Amazingly, the oil companies are attempting to lead the way in the process of converting our energy sources from oil to bio-fuels such as algae.

Burning Down Their Own Houses

I began to realize that many of our major bodies of water were being destroyed and all that was necessary to reverse the destruction was to halt the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Then I discovered that Corexit creates the same kind of dead zones just like nitrogen which also was unnecessary in its use because a less virulent dispersant could have been used in the Gulf. Did you know that Corexit is banned in 19 countries? It was at that moment that the light went on for me as I realized that we were witnessing the systematic destruction of major bodies of water on a grand scale. This was coupled with my discovery that the oil companies appear to be preparing to transition from oil to algae.

In August of 2009, BP entered into a partnership with Martek Biosciences to study the use of algae to convert sugar into biodiesel. Eight months later, BP’s and Transocean’s “negligence” led to the oil spill which gravely impacted the food chain, poisoned all life forms in the Gulf and dealt an eventual death blow to the Gulf by creating a massive series of dead zones where nothing will grow, except for algae, for generations to come.

BP is not alone with regard to a major oil company’s foray into the algae business. ExxonMobil entered into a partnership with Synthetic Genomics in order to develop energy’s next king, bio-fuels from algae. From this work, it was discovered that Corexit increases the bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons into golden-brown algae. For oil companies to be involved in algae conversion is the metaphorical equivalent of burning down your own house in order to collect the insurance money, and this is precisely what they did to the Gulf.

These facts certainly beg the question as to why BP and Exxon Mobil would be investing in a technology which would threaten their only viable product, namely oil?

Why Algae?

Algae has the potential to avoid most of the problems of conventional bio-fuels production, such as competition with food crops, and in principle can have dramatic effects on carbon dioxide emissions, even consuming emissions from sources such as coal-fired power plants.

The major problem with using algae as the next bio-fuel is that the fuel yields from algae are still too low for it to be a break-even proposition. However, if that problem were to be solved, algae would be king because it is such a low-maintenance substance. In a related and stunning development, Exxon has partnered with Craig Venter, the pioneer of DNA research. Venter has a stellar record of achievement in his work on the human genome. If anyone can solve the algae yield problem, Venter would the guy. However, if Venter cannot solve the problem of algae yield, OriginOil, Inc. is developing a novel technology which will transform algae into a source of renewable oil. Below is a depiction of the process.It Is Not a Conspiracy Until You Follow the Money

Readers need to keep in mind, that Exxon and BP began moving into the algae business several months prior to the Gulf oil spill and BP and its partners have been caught pre-positioning their stock moves to maximize profits and minimize losses IN ADVANCE of the oil spill event. And now they are leading the way to convert the nation from oil to algae energy use. These twin giant oil companies have had a lot of help in making this massive conversion a reality. George Soros is involved in “clean energy conversion” away from oil. Readers may recall from Part Six of this series proved that Soros financial interests were among the top five of financial institution which dumped BP stock a few short weeks before the oil spill, thus, making him a co-conspirator. And now Soros is heavily invested in Gulf algae farms as he has invested $1 billion dollars in the endeavor.

The US military invested $35 million dollars in algae jet fuel. Blackstone Group consulted with the Chesapeake Bay region energy provider Constellation Energy to sell company to Warren Buffet and his company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet is majorly involved in bio-fuels and the algae laden Chesapeake Bay is prime hunting ground for this globalist. Al Gore is also involved in various algae projects as well. The same cast of characters keep rearing their ugly faces in their attempt to subjugate humanity while at the same time make a King’s ransom in the process.

Conclusion

T. Boone Pickens is well on his way to controlling the vast Ogallala Aquifer. Pat Stryker and Koch brothers are involved in garnering Colorado’s water resources in the beta test battleground for Agenda 21. Did you know that that it is illegal in Colorado to reuse irrigation water and to catch rain water? We should be asking ourselves why. Additionally, the Bush family controls the biggest water aquifer in South America. Meanwhile, the globalists are destroying vast amounts water resources in the United States. It seems that the globalists are hell-bent on creating water scarcity.

I do not believe that the globalists only motive is to destroy the Gulf and fresh water supplies so that their new biofuel craze can take hold. I think this is a byproduct to what the central planners are truly after, control over all water which will result in control over who lives and dies. This and more will be covered in the next installment of the Great Gulf Coast Holocaust.

Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such as Freedoms Phoenix, News With Views and The Arizona Republic.

The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.

Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Monsanto the Chemical Company

Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.

Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.

According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.

Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.

Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture

Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.

Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.

Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.

The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.

By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.

Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I’m sure there’s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I’m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”

But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.

Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.

Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”

Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.

By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weedsthat have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.

“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.

Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!

Corporate Control of Seeds

No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.

“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”

Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.

Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.

With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.

Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio.

Food and Water Watch Recommendations

At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”

A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.

In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.

Two studies have found that the pesticide neonicotinoid, used since 1990, is contributing to killing the honeybees needed for pollination of our food crops. Our food supply is reliant on bees to pollinate the crops. They contribute to $15 billion worth of our food supply. In fact, it’s estimated that one third of the food in our diet is connected to honeybees in some way. Honeybees pollinate our corn, apples, almonds, lemons, broccoli, onions, cherries, oranges, avocadoes, and other fruits, vegetables and flowers, not to mention honey. California‘s almond crop will soon be at stake, as the trees need pollination every year and there are not enough honeybees to do the job.

Neonicotinoid insecticide is contributing to the declining bee population in the U.S. and around the world. The pesticide affects over 94 million acres of land, via seeds treated before they are planted, especially corn, cotton and sunflower seeds. Even small amounts of neonicotinoid make the bees more susceptible to other diseases, and reduces their homing ability. Continued exposure to the chemical is fatal to honeybees. Colony Collapse Disorder caused beekeepers to lose up to 90 percent of their hives in 2006.

Honeybees dying caused the worst honey production year in 2012, and may lead to a crisis in the California almond industry. The American Bee Journal reported that the shortage of nectar and pollen in the hives in 2012 took a toll on the bee colonies as the bees suffered from poor nutrition. Fewer bees survived the winter. Of the 1.6 million bee colonies that California relies on to pollinate the almonds, 500,000 come directly from California and the rest are brought in by trucks from across North America. The loss of bee colonies could wreak havoc with the almond pollination period in California, and lead to an economic loss for California almond growers, as well as higher prices of almonds for consumers. California supplies 80 percent of the world’s almonds, three quarters of which are shipped worldwide. Almonds are a $3 billion industry.

Globalization affects everyone. The shrinking world brings people in the United States closer to ideas and cultures from all corners of the earth. Likewise, other countries are introduced to many facets of the American life and that way of life includes genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The use of GMOs in food originated in America and while much of the West has banned their use, the developing world is taking part – to their detriment.

GMO introduction

Genetically engineered crops came to the market in America in the mid 90s. With much help from the FDA, who didn’t require additional labeling, due to their concept of “substantial equivalence,” the consumer was none the wiser. Basically, the FDA didn’t find it necessary to inform consumers of GMO use through labeling because they didn’t see any significant difference between GMOs and conventional crops.

GMOs today

Fast forward to modern day. The use of GMOs in food has been problematic. Super weeds are destroying farmers’ fields; only a handful of multinational corporations own the patents to these crops; biodiversity is diminishing. What’s more, these crops have yet to be found safe for long-term human consumption in any independent studies. This is because the studies are done by the corporation responsible for the technology which allows for a severe bias. America is exceedingly at the whim of these mega-conglomerates who are making very large claims. Genetic engineering is the future of food; it is supposed to help alleviate world hunger, produce larger yields, resist pests without a lot of pesticides, and help reduce farmers’ labor. The technology is now being pawned off to the developing world as a solution to their poverty and hunger. How do these claims stack up? And are these corporations really helping the third world?

Coral bleaching is on the rise thanks to warming waters throughout the world due to global warming and man-made chemicals dumped into our waters. As the world heats up, our fresh water ice caps melt. Devastating consequences due to global warming include fresh water entering our oceans’ natural currents from the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. This fresh water slows down the oceans’ natural salt water flow, and will eventually halt our oceans’ currents causing even bigger problems for humanity!

That is a whole different story, however it relates to increasing dead zones in saltwater and freshwater bodies thanks to man-made global warming due to the burning of finite fossil fuels. Global warming and the dumping and runoff of man-made chemicals are destroying the Gulf of Mexico, oceans, seas and large freshwater sources like the Great Lakes. Our world relies on these waters to help sustain our seafood supplies and shrinking sources of freshwater which are vital to help sustain a overpopulated earth.

Let’s take a look at one specific area, the Gulf of Mexico, which explains why we are experiencing massive coral reef bleaching, and the deaths and disappearances of fish and other sea creatures.

The most current map of dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico may not reflect BP’s massive oil spill on April 20, 2010. It does not take into consideration that BP’s oil spill killed off a large, untold number of species of ocean dwellers like the 29 marine mammals that live in the gulf including dolphins and whales. Why does the Gulf of Mexico have huge areas where the waters are devoid of most or all living organisms? There are two main reasons.

One factor is the shallow water depths in the Gulf of Mexico which is the world’s ninth largest body of water if technically separated from the Atlantic Ocean. The average water temperature of the gulf during the summer months ranges from the upper 70’s to upper 80’s. 90 degree waters are not uncommon, and marine life cannot live in what is close to bath water temperatures for humans! Why do you think hurricanes that enter the gulf during the warm months gain so much energy? The weather systems have two forces that they need which are extremely warm water and hot temperatures to help them morph from a tropical storm into a enormously destructive hurricane. Global warming has caused not just air temperatures to rise but water temperatures to increase as well. Coral reefs are fragile, and they cannot live in such a warm, polluted environment.

The other synthetic reason why our oceans and the Gulf of Mexico are experiencing slow to rapid die-offs of coral reefs and the various forms of marine life that rely on them as a inter-connected life support system is man-made chemical waste. Is it just coincidence that the ‘Dead Zone’ in the gulf is near where the Mississippi River flows into it? Fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide run-off from farms flow into tributaries of the Mississippi River and directly into the river itself. Industrial farms and factories have uncontrolled flows of pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorous that ultimately end up in the Gulf of Mexico where they create algae blooms and oxygen depletion. No oxygen = no life. Other major toxins enter our waters via illegal dumping of chemical waste that companies purposely do, because they do not want to deal with the expense of properly disposing of their garbage or toxic waste. Any trash that enters the Mississippi River will end up in the Gulf of Mexico, and it will kill or scare off all marine life, thus creating ‘Dead Zones.’

What about what is already in the Gulf of Mexico? That limited source of energy that we spend more energy to get at than what it actually produces: Oil! Take a look at the number of oil platforms in the gulf along with their locations, and think about the tainting of water and the life in it due to drilling for oil!

Then acknowledge that drilling for oil results in oil spills which have a profound and lasting effect on the environment in general including the Gulf of Mexico:

This is a U.S. problem, but it is not limited to just America! Take a look at the dead zones throughout the world as we heat up, melt away, and pollute like there is no tomorrow!

Notice that even the Great Lakes, the world’s largest source of freshwater, is in trouble directly due to pollution including plastics! There are vast areas in the oceans too that are nothing more than giant, floating garbage dump sites! This is the way we treat our planet, and the dying of our oceans’ and other waterways’ is akin to the ‘Canary in the Coalmine’ scenario. Unless we drastically alter the course of society’s sails, then we are in for some rough waters ahead!

Is that not a pretty picture? It is what happens to our land when we rely on finite sources of dirty fossil fuel energy. Say goodbye to the trees, the animals, and a clean environment! The picture is not of a Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking site. It is a picture of the lesser known Sand Fracking that goes on to supply the needed Silica sand for the extremely toxic Hydraulic Fracking process of which there are now 65,000 wells and counting throughout the U.S.

The premium sand that is ideal for Hydraulic Fracturing or Horizontal Fracturing has been found by businessmen, mainly from Texas, and the high quality sand is in Wisconsin and Minnesota! A little-known company called Glacier Sands LLC a.k.a. Seven Sands LLC is responsible for this “gold rush” in the Sand Fracking industry. Their webpage looks innocent, but looks can be deceiving!

Let’s break down three key people in their leadership: Brian Iverson, Ryan Thomas and Ike Thomas. Brian Iverson drew the attention of Texas businessmen Ike and Ryan Thomas, and he formally set up Glacier Sands LLC a.k.a. Seven Sands LLC in 2011 using a Wisconsin address although he lived in Minnesota. Brian Iverson has not only been accused of investment fraud related to a group of mining investors from Montana, but he also filed bankruptcy a little over two years ago to cover over $21 million of debt he accrued related to former business deals “and personal guaranties he gave as security for business loans.” Source: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/07/09/frac-sand-or-farmland-wisconsin-farmers-face-showdown-rescheduled-august-9

Boy, this Brian Iverson guy sounds like bad news! He’s shady at best, and he has hooked up with two Texas businessmen since 2011 to completely destroy (see picture above) Wisconsin and Minnesota’s pristine environment by slithering in like a snake to slowly poison innocent citizens who have lived here for generations. What for? GREED, of course! Brian Iverson needed help to become financially successful, because he has a dirty past of screwing people over, then filing bankruptcy for his losses! Iverson is the epitome of selfishness! He obviously does not care about people in general or his workers, since I am sure he is aware of the dangers of Silicosis and cancer.

Sand Fracking for Crystalline Silica is known to cause Silicosis and cancer. Source: OSHA: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/crystalline-factsheet.pdf The Silica sand from Sand Fracking can blow for miles if not continually watered down according to lame government standards. At best, the Crystalline Silica produced from Sand Fracking to use in Hydraulic Fracking will only affect nearby areas to include the Mississippi River. That is bad enough if you live in a state where Sand Fracking sites are popping up faster than they can be properly studied for health risks before approval! Without proper studies on the harmful effects and affects of fracking, county boards like Buffalo County, WI just delay the permit for Sand Fracking until all of the ‘angry citizen’ dust has settled. Then, they go in and vote 3-0 in favor of what nobody wants except for the dirty fossil fuel industry and big business like Glacier Sands LLC! I wonder how many board members and other officials get paid to pass legislation for mining that is NOT wanted by a vast majority of U.S. citizens in general? Probably more than one can possibly imagine! Brian Iverson had help from Ike and Ryan Thomas though. Anything coming out of the most polluted state (Texas) in the U.S. for over a decade and running cannot be good!

Is this what our country wants? A monkey barrel of bullies overrunning our local governments to feed their lust for money and power? Apparently so, because I do not see anyone standing up en masse to protest fraudulent businessmen. Businessmen who sucker farmers or anyone else with many acres of land via a greed-laden but small payout for ruining not only the farmer’s or individual’s land, but the land, water, complete infrastructure to include roads and buildings of towns and cities, and health of humans and animals!

Do you think that Glacier Sands or any other “Fracking” business is going to pay for human health problems which show up years or decades later, or the contamination of our land and water in general? They will be long gone by the time we catch up to the mess they have left behind! Taxpayers, as usual, will be stuck cleaning up dirty mining’s mess due to lack of current concern or ability to do much of anything to stop the Sand Fracking nightmare that consumes Wisconsin and Minnesota! It’s such a shame too, because if you can stop the Sand Fracking from happening then you can halt the even more dangerous Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking that uses Crystalline Silica in large quantities. Fracking, like Glacier Sands is doing, has already turned America’s landscape from this

02-27-2013 Ecowatch

Laurel Peltier

In 1989, Dusty and Tamera Hagy bought 81 rural acres in Jackson County, West Virginia. Twenty-one years later, the Hagys sued four natural gas drilling firms alleging the natural gas wells drilled on their property in 2008 contaminated their drinking water and caused physical harm.

The Hagys’ water contamination lawsuit demonstrates how the natural gas industry has built a near-perfect “federal legal exemption’s framework” that when combined with lax or absent state regulations and the legal system’s high costs, inherently approves of citizen collateral damage with no restitution.

The consequence of this framework is that the burden of proof is placed on plaintiffs who, at best, are forced to settle with natural gas companies, thereby sealing the case from public scrutiny, scientific examination and legal precedence. Because the Hagys didn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement with the natural gas companies involved, their legal case gives the public a rare window into how fracking lawsuits play out in reality.

Natural gas is a critical resource. Fifty percent of American residences use natural gas. Natural gas is seen by some as a bridge fuel essential to the U.S.’s strategy to gain energy independence from foreign oil imports. Yet we must ask ourselves: Is the current fracking system one we should support? Are changes needed to level the playing field for all parties involved in fracking? Can fracking be done safely?

The land man cometh

Dusty and Tamera Hagy unwittingly fell into the fracking trap the day they bought their land in 1989. “We loved our 81-acre property, it was our life. We had paid off the mortgage and spent a lot of money fixing the place up. We raised our two boys there, buried our animals there and were planning to give our boys some property,” said Dusty Hagy.

Mineral rights, fracking chemicals and natural gas federal environmental laws were all Greek to the Hagy family before a pleasant Equitable Production Company representative visited the couple in October 2007.

Equitable Production Company’s representative informed the Hagys that four natural gas wells were soon to be drilled on their property about 1,000 feet up the hill from their home.

In West Virginia, surface land ownership is separate from mineral rights. Mineral rights are the portion of the profits received from minerals extracted from land. Another party owns the Hagy property’s mineral rights which were granted hundreds of years ago. The Hagy family receives no gas royalties and didn’t sign a formal gas leasing contract, though, they did sign plenty of “papers” believing they did not have a choice.

Fracking starts – trucks, noise, explosions, and chemicals

On Nov. 11, 2007, trucks, back hoes, tree cutters and workers converged on the Hagy property uphill and upstream from their home. Equitable outsourced the drilling to BJ Services and for the next six months the holler, or enclosed valley, was flattened for a six-acre natural gas well pad.

Tamera Hagy describes life during the drilling and fracking: “It was nothing like what I had expected. This was a huge operation that lasted day and night for eight months. Trucks went up and down the road 24/7. The smell of fumes would make you sick. One night we heard something like a giant drill bit drilling and vibrating under our house.”

Dusty visited the well pad often and learned from the job crew that this fracking job wasn’t going smoothly. One worker mentioned that they had hit a lake of water and were moving the rig. Another worker shared in this audio tape #3 how the cement casing “went bad” and was re-cemented. Of the four open and lined fracking wastewater ponds, one overflowed and later broke, spilling the fracking wastewater into the nearby creek that flows from the well pad past the Hagy family’s home. In March 2008, Dusty noticed that another fracking pond’s wastewater was emptied by hose into the woods. After finding foam and oil slicks in the creek next to their well, and then when their large pond turned green, the Hagys knew something wasn’t right.

Dusty lodged a formal complaint with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on Nov. 17, 2008. DEP records reveal a gas inspector visited the site at the well’s completion and issued no violations. DEP records also reveal the three natural gas wells began producing gas in July 2008 and the wells today continue to produce about 3,000 m.c.f. of gas per month.

Be careful what you sign

As Dusty describes the Equitable representative, “We liked him, and he was a nice enough guy in the beginning and we believed everything he told us at face value.” Equitable said the natural gas drilling was simple and would cause minimal damage on 1.5 acres. When Dusty asked if fracking used anything dangerous, they were told that only water and sand were used, no chemicals were ever mentioned. A water test prior to drilling supported the Hagy’s belief that their water well was clean and safe.

On Oct. 22, 2007, Equitable paid the Hagys $19,000 to cover surface damages to their land and trees because building a well pad trashes the landscape. “I believed the Equitable guy when he said the check was just for surface damages. My property was valued at nearly $200,000. It was stupid to sign that paper, I should have gotten a lawyer,” explained Dusty. Because the well pads used more than the original 1.5 acres, Equitable paid the couple another $10,000 for damage on an additional four acres.

Later in 2008, Dusty learned the papers they had signed to receive the payments were actually damage release contracts attempting to exempt Equitable, and all drilling providers, from any and all damages associated with the drilling. “Other than shooting the family dog, this ‘contract’ covered near everything,” said Dusty Hagy.

Family gets sick—headaches, rashes and vomiting

The family drank, bathed and cooked with their well water from November 2007 to November 2008 during the gas well drilling and fracking. Ironically, the Hagy family had boasted about their pristine well water and even after their adult sons moved out, the boys brought jugs of well water back to their homes.

The Hagys began to notice changes to their water in early 2008. Their water volume was dropping and the water’s color changed from clear to brown. Often black particles were floating in water drawn from their well. Despite overwhelming evidence otherwise, Equitable never reported any issues that would impact the Hagys’ well water.

Adding to the changing water quality, both Dusty and Tamera said they were oddly tired, and woke up with “bad headaches, like a hangover.” Both smelled an “acid” odor in the house and their eyes would burn in certain rooms.

The Hagys didn’t put “two plus two together” until their youngest son went to his family doctor in Columbus, Ohio in October 2008. Their son had complained of nausea and was spitting up blood. His doctor treated him for acid reflux, a disorder he’d never experienced before, and suggested he stop drinking his parent’s well water. The son’s symptoms disappeared soon after he discontinued drinking his parent’s well water.

Based on their complaints, Equitable re-tested the Hagy water well on Nov. 8, 2008 and their water had clearly changed. The turbidity, or murkiness, was six times greater post drilling (0.5 to 3.2) and iron, manganese and calcium levels increased significantly (Dusty replaced one hot water heater during this time due to calcium build-up).

Water tests conducted later also revealed arsenic, lead, barium and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, an organic compound linked to fracking wastewater. The radon levels of the Hagy well were 1,233 pCi/l with the maximum contaminant level set at 300. When those radon levels were compared to area wells, the Hagy’s radon in their drinking water was markedly higher than eight local U.S. Geologic Survey wells in the area.

However, the water tests conducted before and after drilling were limited and included no tests for known fracking chemicals or volatile organic compounds.

In November 2008, Equitable told the couple, “the water was bad” and to stop drinking the well water and the company began supplying bottled drinking water.

On Jan. 13, 2009, Dusty and Tamera vacated their home and have never moved back. “We thought we were going to die,” said Dusty Hagy.

Relations with Equitable were getting tense; Dusty even began recording phone conversations. Repeated requests for a list of the chemicals used in fracking went unanswered.

Dusty Hagy assumed Equitable would fix the water issue based on phone conversations (audio tape #1) with his Equitable representative who stated on the phone:

“ … for whatever reason the water’s been affected because of our drilling process. But the horizontal portion of it I don’t think had anything to do with it. Something we did had something to do with it. We have done something to the water, and no one was doubting that, but it wasn’t the horizontal part. I’m not doubtin’ that fact and I don’t think anybody’s doubtin’ that, the horizontal portion wouldn’t affect it.”

Equitable offered to drill a new water well which the family declined because they believed the aquifer itself was contaminated. This belief stemmed from a neighbor’s claim that 30 of his animals had died in 2008 during the gas drilling. Plus, Equitable tied any restitution to the couple signing an non-disclosure agreement, or gag order, meant to silence the Hagys and negate any future claims.

Hagy family sues drilling firms

As this phone conversation (audio tape #3) with Equitable reveals, once the family sought legal representation in March 2009, all contact with Equitable stopped. Bottled water deliveries and hotel payments stopped. While the couple searched for a rental home, they lived in their un-heated camper. On a positive note, once they vacated their home, their negative health symptoms dissipated.

The Hagys sued Equitable Production Company, BJ Well, Halliburton and Warren Drilling in October 2009. In short, even with the taped calls, drilling records, photos, videos and water tests, the Hagys’ lawsuit was “dismissed” in August 2012. Judge Goodwin’s opinion stated, “The case presents no genuine issue of materials fact for a jury to determine.” The lawsuit is in the appeals process and the litigation costs to date are $175,000.

How does this happen?

Though the Hagys’ lawsuit appears to provide evidence of water contamination, their dismissed lawsuit supports the claim, “There are no known cases of drinking water contamination from fracking,” often touted by pro-fracking groups.

This claim isn’t true, at least 4 confirmed cases of water contamination exist:

The natural gas industry is exempted from seven major federal environmental laws. These laws in their simplest forms are intended to protect people, places, water and air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with enforcing these laws. Because the natural gas industry isn’t regulated by the U.S. EPA at the federal level because of the legal exemptions, natural gas drilling is regulated on a state-by-state basis.

The chart below outlines the seven federal environmental laws exemptions, with many exemptions dating back decades.

The latest three exemptions were strategically written into the 1,500 page Energy Policy Act of 2005 and are now infamously named the “Halliburton loophole.” These three short paragraphs focused on eliminating water pollution oversight and also eliminated the strict environmental reviews that federal projects must undertake.

When these exemptions are combined, the benefits to natural gas industry are: no federal EPA oversight therefore pushing fracking regulation to the state level, no scientific testing, no environmental studies, no health and geologic studies and no liabilities for drillers of chemical releases into waterways and air.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act’s strategy was to provide the U.S. with “an abundant, domestic and affordable sources of fuel.” Since 2005, the gas industry has been unhampered by federal regulations and the newer shale gas drilling has grown quickly; U.S. natural gas from shale reserves has grown from one percent to 35 percent of the U.S. supply. This new supply of 8.5 trillion cubic feet of gas has forced natural gas prices down by 50 percent, even spurring coal-based electrical plants to convert to natural gas.

The coffin nail: Toxic Release Inventory exemption

The least known exemption though, the 1986 Toxic Release Inventory of Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, may offer the natural gas industry the biggest shield from liabilities and the greatest obstacle for parties alleging fracking water contamination.

In response to the Bopal, India disaster, when Union Carbide released a harmful gas into an urban area which killed more than 20,000 people, Congress required industries to list harmful chemicals on the Toxic Release Inventory to the EPA. The EPA collects and then disseminates that information to the public and local governments.

Yet, oil and gas companies were exempted from the Toxic Release Inventory, therefore chemical disclosure is different for each of the 29 fracking states. To boot, shale gas production, or fracking, is concentrated in relatively gas-friendly states: Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, West Virginia, Colorado and North Dakota, listed in order of gas production volume.

According to an in-depth National Resources Defense Council report which compares today’s hodgepodge of state-level fracking regulations, no state requires full chemical disclosure. Even new regulations in Texas, the largest shale gas producer, require chemical reporting but do not require “proprietary” chemicals to be listed which can account for 50 percent of the chemicals used in one fracking. The report also concludes that state reporting is inconsistent and significant portions of data are missing altogether.

Adding to the lack of chemical disclosure, only two states (West Virginia and Colorado) inform residents about new wells before drilling. This means that in 27 states, residents are not notified of new drilling, making it impossible to conduct comprehensive (and expensive) water testing before the drilling.

How exemptions play out in the law-can you prove what you drank?

In 2007, Equitable wasn’t legally required to disclose the chemicals used in the fracking, therefore no doctor, no person or group knew what chemicals to test for or what caused the foam in the creek, the color changes in the pond or the compromised water well.

Though water tests revealed the Hagy property drinking water had changed since the drilling had occurred, the tests were not apples-to-apples comparisons. During the lawsuit’s evidence discovery process, the natural gas firms finally furnished the list of chemical used on the Hagy property which verified the fracking chemicals used weren’t “just water and sand,” as quoted by the Equitable contact.

The absence of verifiable chemical data is displayed in Judge Goodwin’s opinion and order to grant a motion for Summary Judgement, which in layman’s terms means the Hagy lawsuit was dismissed. The burden of chemical exposure proof was placed on the plaintiffs, “to demonstrate amount, duration, intensity and frequency of chemical exposure.” A catch-22.

Gas leases and contracts: The devil’s in the fine print

Adding to the chemical disclosure catch-22 is that most gas leases heavily favor natural gas drillers. In 2011, The New York Times analyzed more than 110,000 shale gas leases and concluded; over half of gas leases provide landowners no restitution in the event of harm, most exclude any explanation of potential harm and a majority of leases include automatic contract extensions that require no landowner approval. Natural gas wells can produce for decades and gas lease contracts can be automatically renewed in perpetuity. Many leases include clauses mandating that damage disputes be heard in arbitration outside of the legal system.

The door-to-door leasing agents who represent gas drillers, a.k.a. landmen, are tasked with getting natural gas leases signed by landowners. Feedback from many landowners is that landmen are very persuasive, personable and often mis-represent facts. These revealing talking pointspages were reportedly found by a Ohio homeowner who had been visited by a West Bay Exploration’s leasing agent. The talking points, marked confidential, give sales agents advice to, “not talk about the anti-fracking documentary Gasland, to not discuss chemicals or fracking and to speed up the lease signing before people think about the drilling.”

Many natural gas leases border on predatory in nature as it appears the gas leasing process relies on the ignorance of rural, landowners to enter into binding, private contracts with natural gas drillers.

The Hagys claim they were absolutely unaware they had signed a damage release waiver, twice even. “The Equitable representative sat right on my porch and said the cash was a small payment for the trees and land damage. It wasn’t until November 2008 that I even found out I supposedly had signed away any rights,” said Dusty.

These two damage release forms inadvertently signed by the Hagys have reared their ugly heads during the lawsuit process as another reason Equitable and BJ Services claim they are not liable for any water, health or property damage; the companies claim the Hagys signed away any rights to liabilities and restitution.

Suing a gas company—expensive and grueling

“Fracking has been the tragedy of the commons—freedom to a common, brings ruin to all,” according to Maxwell Kennerly, a trial lawyer at The Beasley firm in Philadelphia. Legally it’s been impossible for plaintiffs to precisely pinpoint exactly what happened underground or link exact chemicals to a situation when those chemicals aren’t divulged and the drilling process isn’t accessible. Any lawyer taking these cases has to be prepared to put their own money and resources on the line to be a trailblazer.”

The first legal team hired by the Hagy family in 2009 dropped the Hagys’ case one year later. During that year the family lost valuable time in conducting water tests and gathering evidence. Their current lawyer, Kevin Thompson, of the Law Offices of Thompson Barney in Charleston, West Virginia, has taken the case on a contingency fee basis. The Hagy family has paid no out-of-pocket expenses. The lawsuit’s litigation costs to date top $175,000.

Lastly, there is an emotional toll for using our legal system to get restitution; it’s a grueling process according to Dusty Hagy. “It’s been hell. For over two years, we’ve been reliving this awful experience. In the back-of-our-minds we realize this may be all for nothing. My wife and I feel we had our most important asset stolen from us, the drinking water that makes our property a place to live, not just 81 acres for animals. It feels like the whole system is stacked against us.”

Where are the Hagys?

Interestingly, the Hagys and 70 of their neighbors who live on a 5-mile stretch of Sugar Creek Road have petitioned Southern Jackson County Public Services to extend public water service to their homes at cost of $2 million. The project is on an 5-year waiting list and there is no guarantee it will ever be completed. According to Karl Vielhaber, general manager for the Southern Jackson County Public Service, the property owners have petitioned for municipal water because most claim their water wells are contaminated from gas drilling. Most of the homeowners haul water to their homes from a coin operated water source.

Dusty and Tamera have moved to a new property with a mortgage, and they still own their vacated property. Equitable’s three natural gas wells still produce gas today and may for years on the Hagys’ vacant property.

The winners and losers

A clear winner in fracking so far is natural gas industry. Fracking cases settled out-of-court provide critical benefits for the gas industry because the settlements include “gag orders” so that injured parties can not discuss the case and its contents. Financially, settlements reduce liabilities for natural gas firms by eliminating unpredictable jury awards. More importantly, settlements help the industry maintain their public relation’s campaign to the media, elected officials, the financial industry and the American consumer that natural gas drilling is clean and safe.

American consumers are also winners in the fracking story. According to the Energy Information Administration, residential gas prices are about 50 percent less than the 2008 natural gas price peak.

Fracking’s losers are the private landowners who have been negatively impacted by fracking and may or may not have received proper restitution. Collectively, the public loses as closed settlements shut down any learning, studies or analysis needed to create uniform industry best practices and build legal precedence for future cases.

Fracking regulations are slowly developing. The Obama Administration announced federal regulations mandating methane capturing at well sites. State legislatures are slowly developing new rules with Pennsylvania creating some of the toughest legislation over wastewater recycling and charging per well fees to pay for damages. But, as the Center for Energy Economics and Policy’s website and National Resourced Defense Council report illustrate, fracking regulation is complicated and convoluted.

What can you do?

Stories like this can often leave readers with an uneasy question: “What can I do?” Hear are a few ideas.

Contact your federal and state elected officials. Your state elected officials are key as fracking is exempt from federal regulation and it seems Washington is struggling to make any changes with pretty much anything. Sending a quick email to your state delegates and senator with a link to this post takes 30 seconds and alerts your elected officials that fracking is on your radar screen. Make your opinion on the current process known.

Choose a fracking group from below that matches your point of view and sign-up for their newsletters. Add them to your twitter feed or friend on facebook to keep abreast of new regulations and issues. If you’re a Flipboarder, add fracking to your list.

The groups below often include easy “call-to-actions” where your voice can be heard. Interestingly, all but a few people in these groups and grassroots organizations are volunteers.

But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDAasking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of “milk,” so that when a company lists “milk” on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you’re trying to avoid aspartame, you’ll have no way of doing so because it won’t be listed on the label.

This isn’t only for milk, either: It’s also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.

As the petition states:

IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener — including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.

This is all being done to “save the children,” we’re told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

Milk industry specifically asks to HIDE aspartame from consumers

Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here’s what the petition says:

IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk — including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

In other words, hidingaspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that’s because it’s identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it’s for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you’ll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won’t have the right to know about any of this!

The FDA confirms this “secret” status of aspartame, stating, “If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling.”

FDA requests comments

This is a clue to stop drinking processed milk and milk products altogether

There’s a bigger story here than just the industry hoping to get FDA approval to secretly put aspartame in milk products while not listing aspartame on the label.

The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?

How about the pus content of its dairy products? How about its inhumane treatment of animals who are subjected to torture conditions and pumped full of genetically engineered hormones? How about the fact that homogenization and pasteurization turn a whole food into a dietary nightmare that promotes obesity, autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular disease?

There are lots of dirty little secrets in the dairy industry of course, and that doesn’t even get into the secret closed-door conversations to encourage the FDA to destroy the competition of raw milk.

The only rational answer to all this is to stop buying and consuming processed dairy products, period!

I gave up ALL milk products many years ago and have never looked back. I drink almond milk, not pus-filled pasteurized cow’s milk. (Click here for a recipe to make your own almond milk at home.) I don’t eat yogurt. If I want probiotics, I get them from tasty chewable probiotics supplements such as Sunbiotics. I parted ways with processed dairy products many years ago, and as a result, my cardiovascular health, skin health, digestive health and stamina have all remained in outstanding shape.

There’s also a philosophical issue here: Don’t buy products from an industry that habitually LIES about everything. The dairy industry is like a mafia. They actively seek to destroy the competition, keep consumers ignorant and monopolize the market. They run highly deceptive ads with ridiculous claims like, “drinking milk helps you lose weight” and other nonsense.

The U.S. dairy industry is steeped in deception at every level, and now they want you and your children to unknowingly drink aspartame that’s secretly blended into the product.

The dairy industry is to food as Lance Armstrong is to sports. It’s all a big lie, laced with secret chemicals and false claims.

Sources for this article:
This petition was originally brought to our attention by a reader who says it was covered on Activist Post. I haven’t yet read that article but may update this article with a link to that article once I identify the URL.

Proven Unsafe But FDA-Approved: Are YOU Still Consuming This Man-Made Poison

Americans drink more soda than anyone else on the planet — well over 700 eight-ounce servings each year, on average, and an increasing amount of it is diet soda.

They might be more reluctant to do so if they knew about the safety questions still surrounding aspartame. A number of scientists responding expressed major concerns about aspartame’s safety at the time of its approval, and even more indicated areas where they believed more research is needed on aspartame to resolve their concerns — research on areas such as neurological functions, brain tumors, seizures, headaches, and adverse effects on children and pregnant women.

Grist reports:

“In a 1996 survey, Ralph G. Walton … looked at 166 peer-reviewed studies on aspartame undertaken between 1980 and 1985. He found that all 74 of the studies funded by the industry found no adverse effects from aspartame, while 84 of the 92 independently funded articles did find bad effects.”

Aspartame is the ingredient found in NutraSweet, It is also found in Equal, Spoonful, Equal Measure, AminoSweet, Benevia, NutraTaste, Canderel, and many popular “diet” sodas. This chemical is currently on the ingredient list of nearly 6,000 products worldwide. But since it was approved for use as a food additive in 1981, it has been dogged by complaints about its safety.

Was aspartame ever proven safe for human consumption before it gained FDA approval as a food additive?

Not according to Dr. John Olney, a researcher at Washington University in Saint Louis who first began studying aspartame in 1970. Dr. Olhney believes aspartame should not be on the market today “because it hasn’t been demonstrated to be safe.” Also in agreement with Dr. Olney are the FDA’s own investigations into the chemical from 1975 to 1980.

When the FDA was presented with Dr. Olney’s research, they assigned an outside public board of inquiry the task of deciding if aspartame should be allowed for human consumption. In 1980, the doctors on that board unanimously ruled that aspartame should not go on the market. An internal FDA panel concluded the same thing in 1980.

According to the FDA Chairman at that time, Dr. Gere Goyan, his next recommendation was to set up another FDA committee to study aspartame, composed people who played no previous part in the former studies of aspartame. Dr. Gere Goyan never saw the results of that 1980 FDA internal study, because he was forced to step down as FDA Chairman the day Ronald Reagan took office on January 21, 1981.

His replacement? Dr. Arthur Hill Hayes.

Dr. Hayes is notable for two reasons. First, he had no previous history of dealing with the science of food additives. Second, he was apparently hand picked to head the FDA by a prominent member of Ronald Reagan’s political transition team, Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, the same Donald Rumsfeld who led the United States into the multi trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense during the Bush presidency. But in 1981, Rumsfeld had a different title: CEO of the G.D Searle company, the company that owned the patent on aspartame.

One of Dr. Arthur Hill Hayes first acts as FDA Chairman was granting aspartame approval for use in dry goods. Incidentally, one of Hayes’ last acts in office as FDA Chairman was to approve aspartame for use in beverages.

So was aspartame approved because studies ever showed it was safe for human consumption? Or was it approved thanks to the political influence of Donald Rumsfeld?

According to former Sentator Howard Metzenbaum, who reviewed the FDA’s approval process of aspartame in the Senate in 1987, “I think there were a lot of politics involved in its being approved.” Research scientist Dr. Olney is even more blunt, “the issue (aspartame) is really not an issue of science, it’s an issue of politics.”

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

So much has been written and said about the FDA approval process in the case of aspartame, as well as subsequent widespread reports of adverse reactions, related degenerative diseases and neurological afflictions associated with aspartame, it’s a wonder anyone still uses ANY product containing this potent neurological poison.

Americans consume close to 50 billion liters of soda per year, which equates to roughly 216 liters, or about 57 gallons per person, much of this in the form of diet soda loaded with aspartame. People are no doubt still opting for this toxic synthetic chemical because of the mistaken belief that drinking diet soda will help fight weight gain.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Coca-Cola has to spend $3 billion a year on marketing? Could it be because they want you “feel good” about their products and not think about the actual ingredients?

Now let’s take a closer look at the politics behind the FDA’s approval of aspartame, and the reason the FDA and politicians have a very real financial incentive to keep aspartame available for human consumption. Along with what the scientific studies not funded by the aspartame or the diet soda industry actually reveal about this toxic neurological poison.

Since its Discovery, Aspartame has Been Linked to Brain Tumors

Dr. Adrian Gross, the FDA’s toxicologist who examined the aspartame research initially presented to the FDA by G.D. Searle, was “absolutely shocked” at the evidence according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, showing “an enormous increase in tumors, particularly brain tumors.”

“And of course that’s exactly what we’re seeing now is this tremendous increase in brain tumors in this country. Which is completely unexplained by the neurological profession,” continues Dr. Blaylock.

Dr. Blaylock has written three books about the health dangers of excitotoxins (aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins), but has never been sued by the artificial sweetener industry over the facts he’s brought to light about the dangers of using these synthetic man-made toxic chemical sweeteners. Why hasn’t the aspartame industry gone after him legally? Or after me for that matter, for my expose on artificial sweeteners called “Sweet Deception”?

“They all realized that they couldn’t answer my arguments. So they left me alone. They’re afraid that if it comes to a big standoff between me and them, they’re going to lose. What they’re doing is the old ploy of just ignoring and hoping it will go away. Of course, they put pressure on magazines, journals and newspapers not to interview me. They are trying to keep me in the shadows where they hope most people don’t hear anything I have to say. It only works for so long.”

In 1975 the FDA came to the conclusion that aspartame should not be allowed on the market. They requested that further studies be conducted. The FDA’s next move was to set up a public board of inquiry composed of outside experts to investigate the safety of aspartame, and in 1980 that board unanimously rejected aspartame’s request for approval. According to a 60-Minutes story on aspartame, another internal FDA panel convened in 1980 also rejected aspartame for approval.

The Dangers of Aspartame

So it was three strikes against aspartame at this point, four strikes if you count the Bressler Report. This report was compiled in 1977 after FDA scientists looked into the field studies conducted on aspartame. The Bressler Report uncovered fraud and manipulation of data so serious that the FDA forwarded their files to the Chicago US Attorney’s office for prosecution.

How bad were the alleged crimes committed by G. D. Searle in an attempt to manipulate the safety studies on aspartame? Here is just one example contained in the Bressler Report:

“According to the FDA themselves, Searle, when making their presentation to the FDA, had willfully misrepresented the facts, and withheld some of the facts that they knew would possibly jeopardize the approval.”

Metzenbaum’s staff investigated the aspartame approval process in 1987. He goes on to explain that:

“FDA officials were so upset they sent the file to the US Attorney’s office in Chicago for the purposes of presenting it to the grand jury as to whether or not there should be indictments. But it wasn’t presented. It was delayed.”

Samuel Skinner, the U.S. attorney who led the grand jury probe ended up withdrawing from the case when he entered into job discussions with Searle’s Chicago law firm, Sidley & Austin – a job he later accepted. Subsequently, the investigation stalled until the statute of limitation ran out, at which point the investigation against Searle was dropped.

For more details on the story of how aspartame made it through the FDA approval process despite warning signs of potential health hazards and alleged scientific fraud, please watch the 60-Minutes report, as Wallace does a nice job of summarizing an otherwise long story.

So the results of the scientific data were fairly clear up until 1980: Aspartame was a dangerous, brain tumor causing man-made poison and the company trying to get it into the food supply was recommended for prosecution by the FDA. You would think that would be the end of aspartame, right?

Not by a long shot.

Aspartame Finally Receives FDA Approval

So it was four strikes against aspartame, but Searle had a blockbuster product on its hands that was sure to lead to millions of dollars in profits. So what did the CEO of the company do?

But even with a friendly new FDA Chairman in place, the agency still rejected aspartame for approval by a 3-2 margin. What reprehensible, bordering on criminal action did Chairman Hayes do next? He added a sixth member to the approval board, who voted in favor of aspartame. Then, with a 3-3 tie on the issue, Chairman Hayes himself broke the deadlock with his own vote of approval for aspartame.

So he packed the board and then used his own vote as a tie-breaker. All apparently perfectly legal… And one of Hayes’ last acts in office before he left the FDA in1983 amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors, was to approve aspartame for use in beverages. Does this sound to you like a man-made synthetic chemical that should have ever been allowed into the world’s food supply?

If the FDA Keeps Aspartame on the Market, it Must be Safe, Right?

Once allowed on the market, the aspartame industry quickly became very profitable, creating a new multi-million dollar source of funds to influence the politicians in charge of overseeing and regulating food safety.

According to the video above, Searle and later Monsanto (who purchased the rights to aspartame), have spent thousands of dollars influencing the politicians who have been influential to keeping aspartame on the market, despite this toxic chemical being the number one source of side-effect complaints to the FDA, with over 10,000 complaints filed and over 91 symptoms documented that are related to its consumption.

This video will familiarize you with some of the terrifying side-effects and health problems you could encounter if you consume products containing this chemical. Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not well-known by doctors, despite its frequency. Diagnosis is also hampered by the fact that it mimics several other common health conditions, such as:

Multiple sclerosis

Parkinson’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease

Fibromyalgia

Arthritis

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Attention deficit disorder

Panic disorder

Depression and other psychological disorders

Lupus

Diabetes and diabetic complications

Birth defects

Lymphoma

Lyme disease

Hypothyroidism

So why is aspartame still on the market? In all likelihood, it was allowed on the market and remains on the market for political and economic reasons. According to Former Senator Metzembaum,

“I think the Chairman of the FDA (Hayes) wound up having some sort of economic relationship, beneficial to himself, with Searle Manufacturing, who at that time owned the rights to aspartame.”

And what about Donald Rumsfeld? Did he benefit financially from the approval of aspartame? He reportedly received a $12 million bonus when he left G.D. Searle, no doubt related to his ability to gain regulatory approval for what until 1981 had been a toxic poison that caused brain tumors in laboratory rats.

Are You Now the Lab Rat?

The answer unfortunately is yes, if you consume any of the more than 6,000 products that contain aspartame. And aspartame is not just in the food supply, it’s also added to pharmaceutical drugs to sweeten them. We are now beginning to see an explosion of unexplained brain tumors worldwide. Is it related to aspartame? This is certainly a possibility, as according to Dr. John Olney, “aspartame hasn’t been demonstrated to be safe.”

The “Real-World” Case of Edith Johnson

This issue isn’t a merely a theoretical debate about food safety versus politics, or about an industry poisoning the world for the sake of profits. This issue is about real people in the real world ingesting a potent neurotoxin on a daily basis, and the damage aspartame is causing to real people.

“I was horrified, I was panic stricken, I was scared to death,” says Edith Johnson in the video above. “Within a matter of moments I went completely blind.”

Edith is talking about the experience she had while drinking a cup of low-calorie hot chocolate. “All of a sudden I couldn’t see. My eyes went out of focus. I think it’s very deliberately because of aspartame.” Continues Edith, “they had no right to market it (aspartame). My message to people is to drink water. You don’t need aspartame in your life.”

The “Real-World” Case of Kate Randall

Kate Randall, also featured in the video above, drank nine Diet Cokes a day for five years and developed a twitch in her eye that several doctors could not explain, although the doctors did apparently rule aspartame out as a cause of the afflictions.

“I started popping in my hands and twitching in my feet. My legs, my knees, my upper legs and shoulders and arms and everywhere. My chin, neck and temples started to twitch.”

All of the tests the doctors ran came back negative, so she decided to do her own research into her strange symptoms.Continues Kate, “I absolutely believe that it (aspartame) was (responsible for) the breakdown of my health for two years.”

What would Kate like to tell people about aspartame?

“Avoid it.”

The Trouble with the Phenylalanine and Aspartic Acid in Aspartame

Aspartame is a synthetic chemical composed of three ingredients – two amino acids and a methyl ester bond. The amino acids are phenylalanine and aspartic acid, two common components of many foods that are usually completely safe for consumption. But not in the case of aspartame.

Why?

Forgetting for a moment that aspartame is metabolized inside your body into both wood alcohol (a poison) and formaldehyde (which embalms tissue and is not eliminated from your body through the normal waste filtering done by your liver and kidneys), the trouble with the component parts of aspartame is one of volume.

In a normal protein like meat, fish or eggs, phenylalanine and aspartic acid comprise 4-5 percent each of the total amino acid profile. This is how nature intends the human body to encounter these two amino acids and there is nothing wrong with these substances if they occur naturally in a proper balance with other amino acids.

But in aspartame the ratio of these two amino acids is 50 percent phenylalanine and 40 percent aspartic acid (with 10 percent methyl ester bond, aka wood alcohol, a known poison). In other words, on a percentage basis this is a massive quantity of two unnaturally isolated amino acids that are simply not found in this ratio in nature, bonded together by a known poison.

The result of this chemical cocktail is a sweet tasting neurotoxin. As a result of its unnatural structure, your body processes the amino acids found in aspartame very differently from a steak or a piece of fish. The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation, called excitotoxicity. MSG is also an excitotoxin, and works synergistically with aspartame to create even more damage to your brain cells.

This is how aspartame causes brain tumors. Adding to the problem, according to Dr. Blaylock:

“Excitotoxins have been found to dramatically promote cancer growth and metastasis. In fact, one aspartame researcher noticed that, when cancer cells were exposed to aspartame, they became more mobile, and you see the same effect withMSG. It also causes a cancer cell to become more mobile, and that enhances metastasis, or spread. These MSG-exposed cancer cells developed all of these pseudopodians and started moving through tissues.“

Aspartame Included on the EPA’s Potentially Dangerous Chemicals List!

As rates of learning disabilities, autism and related neurological disorders like lupus and MS skyrocket in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to release a roster of the pollutants likely to contribute to these or other neurological disorders. Aspartame has been included on this list.

In an ongoing, three-year effort, an EPA team has determined which developmental neurotoxicants — chemicals that damage a fetal and infant brain — may pose the biggest risk to the American public.

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener found in sodas, and in other foods and drinks;

Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in consumer goods, including the resin lining of most food and beverage cans; products made from polycarbonate plastics, which include water bottles and baby bottles, and some dental sealants;

Cadmium, a heavy metal that is used in batteries, coatings and pigments, and is plentiful in tobacco smoke.

PBDEs a class of chemical flame retardants.

Pesticides and insect repellents, including aldicarb, DEET, lindane, (used for lice and scabies), maneb, and paraquat.

Trichloroethylene, formerly used in dry cleaning but still available as a cleaning and degreasing agent and a contaminant in drinking water.

Are You Ready to Ditch Artificial Sweeteners?

You may think you’re making a healthy choice by swapping out sugar for artificial sweeteners but the truth is that you’re not

Your body, when given artificial sweeteners, begins craving sweets because you are not giving it the proper fuel it needs. Finding out your nutritional type will tell you exactly which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied. It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will significantly lessen and may even disappear.

Meanwhile, be sure you address the emotional component to your food cravings using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success. And, if diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time.

Healthier Alternatives

For those times when you just want a taste of something sweet, there is a healthier alternative called Stevia that you can use in moderation. Stevia is a natural plant and, unlike aspartame and other artificial sweeteners that have been cited for dangerous toxicities, it is a safe, natural alternative that’s has been around for over 1500 years and is ideal if you’re watching your weight, or if you’re maintaining your health by avoiding sugar.It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and truly has virtually no calories.

Stevia is my sweetener of choice. However, like most choices, especially sweeteners, I recommend using it in moderation, just like sugar. I prefer to use it in its liquid flavored form and my favorite flavors are English Toffee and French Vanilla. I want to emphasize, however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether, including Stevia, as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin.

So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.

But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using regular Stevia, and toss out all artificial sweeteners and any products that contain them immediately.

Report Adverse Reactions!

By all means, also please forward this article to your friends and loved ones who are still drinking diet sodas and poisoning themselves. You can make a difference on this issue by helping to spread the word. You may help save the life of someone you love, if you can get them off this toxic neurological poison before they too experience strange symptoms that their doctor or doctors simply cannot explain or mistake for something else.

Update 02-25-2013 Why is Obama working so closely with Monsanto? Bill Gates owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto! Bill Gates & Melinda Gates believe and have stated so numerous times that our world is over-populated and needs a “cleansing!” Monsanto is a rogue GMO monopoly hell bent on making money at the expense of human health, species loss & extinction including human beings, environmental ruin to kill off the remaining poor folks left. They are fat cats with fat, phat wallets intent on making humanity a prized possession for those who can afford it the most! What happened to your promise Obama???

The Supreme Court granted Obama’s Solicitor General to argue in support ofMonsanto‘s patents for 10 minutes! Obama opposed GMOs in 2007, and he even stated that Americans had the right to know what is in their food and if it had been genetically modified! He supported GMO labeling of consumers food products of which at least 80% contained GMOs! President Obama has broken his promise to us, and now he appears to be backing Monsanto and their deadly, genetically engineered food crops such as corn and soybeans like Bill Gates has! By the way, supposed humanitarian Bill Gates owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto!